Three and Out: Bruins, Irish, Packers

I apologize for not writing to (all four of) my devoted fans for the past week or so. I was busy buying last-second Christmas gifts, moving boxes full of decorations for my grandparents cluttered mess of a house and enjoying the holiday season with my family and friends. I've been working on a few pieces this week and I've obviously failed to post any of them. So I felt that I needed to do something.

With that said, the whole "Three and Out" thing returns with some brief thoughts on the NHL's biggest surprise, college football's most "storied" program and whether the Packers would have been better off with No. 4 at the helm this season.

I hope you all had a great holiday and I wish that it continues through New Years and into 2009. It's been almost three months since I started writing this second-rate blog and I've enjoyed every minute of it. It's been good practice for me and I like telling my side of the story. I'm very thankful for you and your readership.

Three and Out

1. Last week I wrote about the Chicago Blackhawks and their surprising start. I mentioned that they're hanging tough with the defending champs in the Central Division. In fact, that's the only team they're chasing in the West. I went on to talk about how glad I was to see one of the Original Six find success. But Chicago isn't the only Original franchise that's turning heads this season.

As of today, the Eastern Conference-leading Boston Bruins are seven points ahead of the East's second-best team, the New York Rangers. And while the San Jose Sharks are getting lots of attention for their 27-4-3 record, the Bruins aren't far behind. Today the Bruins trail the Sharks by a mere three points, good for second-best in the NHL. Their record of 25-5-4 is no fluke either. Boston has been dominating the East in every facet of the game: They lead the NHL in goals scored, are second in goals against and their power play has been on fire so far.

When I was rambling about Chicago last week I also told you how they have two very good goalies. Not to take anything away from them, but Boston's goalies rank second and third in the entire league in GAA. One may argue that Boston is not battle-tested in the playoffs and that they may not be for real. My defense to that would highlight two key points: 1) they have great goaltending, which usually rules in the playoffs and 2) this team can win as well on the road as they can at home. Only two other teams (Detroit and Philly) have lost four games or fewer both home and away. That's the sign of a great team.

2. If someone asks you what's new this holiday season and you really want to knock them off their feet, tell them that Notre Dame won a bowl game this year. Sure, they were 6-6 after the regular season and their best win came against the Naval Academy - but they won a bowl game! That's the first time someone can say that since 1995, a streak that included nine straight bowl losses.

Hawaii played a virtual home game against the Irish in the (what else?) Hawaii Bowl, but couldn't find a way to stop Jimmy Clausen. The kid finished with 401 yards - a Notre Dame bowl record - on only 22 completions. He also set a ND bowl record by tossing five touchdown passes. I truly believe that this game never should have been played. If you include the Hawaii Bowl, Notre Dame and Hawaii finished '08 with a combined record of 14-13. Postseason worthy? I think not.

However, this win did two things for Notre Dame. First, it refueled the ND hype machine for next season. That's something I don't like. Second, it almost guarantees that Charlie Weis will keep his job and get another shot to turn things around in South Bend. That's something I do like. Whether you feel that Charlie Weis should keep his job or not, head coaches need to be given a reasonable amount of time to prove themselves on the field. And again, call me old-school if you fancy, but Weis teaches his student-athletes about more than football. He gets them ready for life and (I think) Notre Dame is still one of the few places that values such a thing.


3. I logged onto ESPN.com the other day and, as always, quickly scrolled to the bottom of the front page to vote on the latest poll. It asked if the Packers would be in the playoffs this year if Brett Favre was still in Green Bay. You have to be kidding me. Like most of America, I'm a big Favre supporter. But that question is unfair to Aaron Rodgers.

The guy puts up better numbers than Favre (who, by the way, is always in shotgun throwing ten yard darts to avoid pressure and up his completion percentage) and has less to work with. The Jets can run and stop the run. The Packers? Not so much. And people may remember the success Brett had during his last season in Green Bay, but do they remember all the postgame press conferences where he couldn't believe that his team was winning so often? The 2007 Packers were a nice story of an overachieving team, with a legendary quarterback, that fell just short of a dream season. Period.

Rodgers finally got his chance to start and the Packers came down to Earth. Meanwhile, the Jets were signing free agent after free agent and Favre was traded to New York. Brett was set up with a great situation and Rodgers was left with inflated expectations. The rest is history. Remember: no one man - or woman for that matter - can make or break a team. It takes an entire group. And at the moment, Favre doesn't have anything that Rodgers lacks.


I'm out.

A Three Team Race

We may only be a quarter of the way through the NBA season, but I think we have a pretty good idea of who is going to play in The Finals. This young season has been dominated by three teams - Boston, Cleveland and Los Angeles - and if this were NASCAR, the rest of the pack would be getting lapped as I speak. These three have each won at least 84% of their games (meaning that they're all on pace to win 69 or more) and they're the only three in the league with an average scoring margin of ten or more. So far, the biggest storylines have been centered around these top-tier teams.

The Boston Celtics are on an unbelievable run right now. The other day they tied the all-time record for best start in league history and have won 24 of their first 26 - including 16 straight. The reason I love this team is because they never quit. In this day and age, how often does a defending champ play this hard to defend their title? To go 66-16 one season and then turn around to improve by ten percent is a testament to how hard these guys play. Boston's "Three Party" are a group of driven guys that will never become complacent. They set the tone for the Celtics and their leadership is inspiring.

If Boston doesn't end up playing Cleveland in the Conference Finals, I'll be shocked. The Cavs - led by LeBron James and his 27.3 ppg - may be the third best team in the league thus far, but they're 21-4, undefeated at home and they beat their opponents by an average of 13.1 ppg. The road to The Finals may run through Boston, but Cleveland is the only team with an unblemished home record. LeBron James is listed at 6'8" and I've heard he now weighs close to 280. I still wouldn't call him Michael, but find me a player his size that can fly like that. No one in the world can take over a game like King James and when his stroke is on he is literally unstoppable.


Speaking of unstoppable players, Kobe Bryant has the Lakers playing at a ridiculously high level right now. Last year's Western Conference race was very tight as the eighth-place team in the West, the Nuggets, trailed the first-place Lakers by only seven games heading into the playoffs. Today the top two teams, L.A. and New Orleans, are separated by five games. That's how dominant the Lakers have been this year. Kobe is averaging 25.0 points, 5.4 rebounds and 4.3 assists through 24 games this season. Since MJ left Chicago, no player has been as good as Kobe is today. His shot selection is outstanding, he rarely turns the ball over and he always gets his strong supporting cast involved. Who in the West can challenge the Lakers?

You see, I have no horse in this race. My Sixers just fired their coach, Elton Brand is out a month and despite spending huge money on Andre Iguodala, he still doesn't have a set position. I'm not giving up on the 76ers, but how can they compete with these NBA heavyweights? The depth on those teams is greater, the coaches are better and each lineup plays with more cohesion. I'm excited to see how the season will play out. If the first quarter is any indication, I have a hunch as to which teams we're going to be watching in late May and early June. One thing is for sure: this race is going down to the last few series of the 2009 Playoffs and when that time comes, it'll be worth the wait.

Happy Days

I've never written a thing about hockey. It doesn't mean I don't follow it. It's just hard when the coverage is so limited. And since the lockout, ESPN's refusal to air games makes it even more difficult. I can still watch my Flyers any time they're on, or a game here or there on Versus - but the lack of coverage has hurt the exposure of the game.

There's nothing like watching hockey. When I was young I liked it as much as football, if not more. I played roller hockey constantly in my small town and even if there was no one to play with, me and my boy Luke used to play one-on-one or set up a trash can and pretend we were Lindros and LeClair. I would do the play-by-play, Luke would score most of the goals. Yea, we were dorks.

Back then I was so crazy about it I could name every player on the Flyers and knew who wore which sweater number. I would watch VHS after VHS of Flyers teams of the past and it taught me a lot about the rich history of Philadelphia hockey, as well as the entire league. I loved learning about the early days of the game.

Before the expansion of '67 -- when teams like the Flyers, Penguins and Blues entered the league -- there was only the Original Six. This sextet included the Bruins, Blackhawks, Red Wings, Canadiens, Rangers and Maple Leafs. They set the groundwork for today's NHL and these six happen to be among the most successful franchises in league history. While most have had success throughout my hockey-watching days, one of the Original Six has struggled mightily.

Since the 1992-93 season, the Chicago Blackhawks haven't finished a season with one hundred points, won sixty percent of their games or won their division. For a legendary franchise that plays in a market as large as Chi-Town, that has to be hard to swallow. They've changed head coaches nine times over that stretch, including once this season only four games in. While the firing of Denis Savard -- a former Blackhawk HOF'er himself -- surprised many in the hockey world when it happened, it looks as though the organization made the right move by bringing in Joel Quenneville.

Since the switch, the Blackhawks are playing great hockey and find themselves just five points behind the division-leading Red Wings, last season's Stanley Cup Champions. Only four teams have allowed less goals than Chicago and three of their top four scorers are twenty-two or younger. The signing of Brian Campbell has worked out nicely and defenseman Duncan Keith has been a pleasant surprise, leading the team in both plus/minus and on-ice time. Plus, the Blackhawks have something most teams don't: two good goaltenders.


The blend of young talent and veteran experience has proven to be the right formula for this team, giving the Blackhawk faithful something to cheer about. Virtually every season, Montreal leads the NHL in average attendance. And if they don't, Detroit does. As of today, however, Chicago is #1 in the league. The fans deserve to see a winner. I'm from the Philadelphia area. I can empathize with fans of a great sports city who are hungry for a Cup.

Is Chicago ready to make a serious playoff run? It's hard to tell. This team hasn't faced the kind of adversity that a road playoff game brings. In fact, they haven't made it to the postseason at all. The pieces are in place for a great run, but it's a long season and the NHL postseason is an entirely different animal. For one, it should be interesting to see how they handle themselves over the next couple weeks.

The Blackhawks go to Calgary and Vancouver on back-to-back nights this Friday and Saturday. Oddly enough, both Calgary and Vancouver have the same amount of points (39) as Chicago so far this season. I'm excited to see how they perform in these matchups. From there the Blackhawks have five days off before facing a grueling stretch of four games in six days. Those four games are against Philadelphia, Minnesota and Detroit (twice). Each team is .500 or better this season and Philly and Detroit both have more points (40 and 46, respectively) than Chicago.

More than likely, the Blackhawks will have to get by Detroit at some point if they want to win their first post-expansion Cup. It's been nearly fifty years since the Stanley Cup called Chicago home. The happy days may be here for now, but let's see how long they last. Hungry fans can get impatient and a letdown always hurts more when you're starving for a championship.

Conflicting Cultures

America is known as the melting pot of the world. People come here in search of acceptance, greater freedom, or a new beginning. Each group brings with them different customs and an identity all their own. Distant cultures then mold to form new cultures. This molding helps to establish diversity and that diversity can change the way an entire generation advances.

Some people, however, choose not to adjust, rejecting diversity or any new idea that may emerge. And I'm not talking about just one type of person. Ignorance can be found just about everywhere. It has neither racial, nor religious ties. All over this country there are little pockets of people stuck in their ways, unable to see the light. It's called cultural discrimination - and it needs to end.

Within the NCAA -- the collegiate athletic association that claims to support "diversity and inclusion" -- there are many who ignore the core values of this organization. For years, the opinions of these hypocrites have had a direct impact on who some colleges and universities hire to chief positions. For example, the number of minority head coaches at the FBS level, formerly D1-A, is overwhelmingly low and the figure continues to dwindle.

When it comes to the issue of discrimination, I apologize for focusing only on football and only the top division. I'm sure there are other instances in others sports. But the fact is that no other NCAA sport is as big a business as football at the FBS level. The problem here is that those big dollar signs could be why the number of minority head coaches is so low. But why are those doing the hiring so hesitant to give a minority an opportunity this great?

In some cases, it could have to do with the pressure to succeed right away. That really depends on what you consider successful. Today it seems as though resumes are judged solely upon win/loss record. So when it comes to success, wins and losses tend to go a long way. Call me old school if you like, but why does it always have to be about wins and losses? I thought the NCAA stood for more than that. I understand that, financially speaking, there are some great opportunities to capitalize on. It just seems like college football is turning into a minor league of sorts.

On its website the NCAA claims to be "committed to the best interests, education and athletics participation of its student-athletes." That sounds nice, but it seems like the NCAA is more committed to their own interests. If they're facing pressure to hire that perfect candidate, they're bringing it upon themselves. I feel like we're getting away from what's most important. Some people forget that the term is student-athlete.

In many cases, racial and/or religious prejudices play a part. Whether there's a hidden agenda or not, here are the facts: The percentage of Caucasian football players at the FBS level is about fifty, the percentage of assistant coaches is about eighty-five and the percentage of head coaches is currently ninety-seven. It seems like the higher a minority wants to rise, the more difficult it becomes. What ever happened to equality? We, the American people, just came to the conclusion that a bi-racial man named Barack Obama is the best person to lead us into our dismal future. Meanwhile, some universities are unwillig to hire (for example) a black man with a proven track record who recruits well, coaches well and stands for what's right.

Some argue that minorities have little desire to coach. That's false and it's a poor excuse. Excuses are exactly what we need less of. I'm convinced that there are many Ken Niumatalolos and Randy Shannons out there that are being overlooked because of their name or the color of their skin. Some schools say, after they hire who they want to hire, that so-and-so just wasn't a good fit. If a class act like (again, for example) Turner Gill can't relate to any young man out there, who can? Do some research of your own. Turner Gill is the next big thing in the coaching world. He's what a struggling power needs. And the last time I checked, Auburn (for example) is a struggling power.

If you look closely, though, the discrimination only takes place in certain parts of the country. For instance, California -- known for its laid-back approach -- is located within the Pac-10 conference boundaries. No conference has ever hired more minority coaches in its history. On the other hand, the Southeastern Conference -- which is comprised of states famous for segregation and the civil rights movement -- has hired the fewest minorities in college football's history. Coincidence? Absolutely not. To this day, there are conflicting cultures that are blocking the road to equal rights.

In terms of equality, America has come a long way over the last fifty years. If it wasn't for activists, we wouldn't be where we are today. There are many people, however, who know what's right and still aren't saying enough to change things. There's always room for improvement. Putting a minority in the White House isn't the end of the fight. The more people speak up about the discrimination in major college football, the sooner people will see the light, change their ways and begin to hire based solely upon character.

My Proposition

Bowl games or a playoff? That is the question. Folks have been debating the topic for years. It's a battle over tradition, money, and what's right for the sport we love. College football has been around forever and there are many time-honored traditions. When people talk about college football tradition, they talk about bowl games.

Every other level of college football, as well as every other sport within the NCAA, has a playoff system of some sort. Historically, bowl games have earned large sums of money and brought lots of attention to the schools that participate and the cities that host. Many argue that a playoff system would jeopardize the integrity of the FBS regular season and generate less money for the schools involved. I beg to differ. I think we can have our cake and eat it too.

There's no way to satisfy everyone. When any outfit makes a substantial change like this there needs to be compromise. I love the bowl games and appreciate the great traditions that go along with them. But the bottom line is that just about every year there is at least one team with a legitimate argument as to why they were snubbed by the pollsters. Seven of the top eight teams today are from a "BCS conference" and each has one loss. Three of these seven are from the Big 12 and took turns beating one another. How can anyone say that one is better than the next? You can guess - but you never know for sure.

The only fair way to figure things out is to play the games on the field. Today the BCS National Championship Game is a virtual two-team playoff. If the two teams in the championship happen to be the only two undefeated teams, all is well. The problem is that this is rarely the case. College football's top division needs to implement a playoff. And I have an idea of how to do it, while still preserving the cherished bowl games.


Before introducing my plan I would like to set some guidelines.

My first thought is that the current twelve game regular season is a fine number. Three or four non-conference games and eight or nine conference games is perfect. In almost every case, this kind of schedule provides the public with a clear of idea of which team is best in each league.

Something I would like to eliminate is the presence of conference championship games. This year's SEC Championship proved that an 11-1 Florida team was, indeed, better than a 12-0 Alabama team. But if the playoffs had started last week, prior to this game, both teams would have been among the top four seeds in a playoff anyway. If fourth-ranked Florida had been ranked, say, twenty-fourth and won, should they be SEC Champs? These games do little good for the polls and are merely an opportunity for the conferences that play them to rake in more money.

Speaking of superfluous games, too many teams participate in the postseason today. There are currently thirty-four bowl games. If university presidents and league commissioners are so concerned with the integrity of the game when it comes to the bowl game/playoff argument, what does thirty-four bowl games do for the sport? Besides earning huge money through bowl payouts, television contracts and tourism, this number of games does nothing but hurt the credibility of the great bowl tradition. Who wants to watch Notre Dame and Hawaii - a combined 13-12 this season - in the Hawaii Bowl? Will you be watching Northern Illinois and Louisiana Tech - a combined 13-11 - in the Independence Bowl? I didn't think so. The FBS brass cannot deny the insignificance of these games. If you think they're anything but paydays, you're out of your mind.

When it comes to automatic bids for conference champions, there should be no place for it in today's BCS system and absolutely none in any kind of playoff format. I believe that about twenty teams are better than Cincinnati, the 2008 Big East Champs. Yet they find themselves playing in the Orange Bowl this postseason versus Virginia Tech, another undeserving BCS conference champion. It's crazy that either one of these teams is playing in a BCS game while, for the second year in a row, at least one Big 12 team is being excluded from the mix due to ridiculous rules.


My plan is pretty simple: I propose an eight-team playoff. The eight seeds shall be decided by an average of two human polls - no computers or crazy formulas. Both the Coaches Poll and AP Poll have produced unbiased, regionally-balanced rankings for decades. If the people that are closest to the action can't accurately rank the nation's best, no one can. I understand that with any limit - four, eight, sixteen, etc. - there will be backlash. But if a team can't make it to the top eight by season's end, do they deserve a shot at the title?

The current BCS system is comprised of four "major" bowls: Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta. Each season, one of these four bowl destinations also hosts the BCS Championship Game. I like the idea of rotating championship locations. But there's a twist. I would like to include the Cotton Bowl in my rotation. It annually hosts a Big 12-SEC matchup (although that wouldn't be a guarantee in my system) and is loaded with a rich history.

In my FBS Tournament, the first round games would be played at four of the five major bowl destinations. The Final Four - the semifinals and Championship Game - would then take place at the fifth location. Since the Orange Bowl is the host of this year's Title Game, it can be the site of our Final Four.

Besides the eight teams that make the tournament and play in the major bowls, I would like to keep an additional 8-12 bowl games. This gives other winning teams a chance to play one final game. It would probably be best to keep the oldest, most tradition-rich bowls such as the Capital One, Holiday, Gator and Sun, among others. I'm not overly concerned with which non-tournament bowls remain, but it would be a nice way to include other winning schools for a job well done. I just think that flooding the bowl schedule with 6-6 or 7-5 teams takes something away from bowl season.

Below is an example of how the FBS Tournament's first round games would look if my format was applied this postseason. Remember: the seeding is based on each team's average Coaches/AP rank.

Cotton Bowl:
#1 Florida vs. # 8 Texas Tech
Fiesta Bowl:
#2 Oklahoma vs. #7 Utah
Rose Bowl:
#3 Texas vs. #6 Penn State
Sugar Bowl:
#4 Alabama vs. #5 Southern Cal

In this scenario, the Cotton and Sugar Bowl Champions would then face one another in one semifinal before eventually facing the winner of the Fiesta and Rose in the National Title Game. Since I don't like the idea of conference championship games, let's look at the first rounds games if Florida hadn't beaten Alabama and Oklahoma hadn't notched another win over Missouri.

Cotton Bowl:
#1 Alabama vs. #8 Texas Tech
Sugar Bowl:
#2 Florida vs. #7 Utah
Rose Bowl:
#3 Texas vs. #6 Penn State
Fiesta Bowl:
#4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Southern Cal


After seeing my hypothetical FBS Tournament brackets, compare the actual BCS bowl matchups. Which games would you rather watch? Which system makes more sense to you? For me it's a no-brainer.

There doesn't have to be any argument. You get the best of both worlds: the bowl games within a playoff, while many other legitimate bowls can still be played. The season won't have to extend into the spring semester and the most games any team will play is fifteen. Plus, all the games can still be played in fair-weather sites to keep game-changing elements out of the equation.

If a group like the Rose Bowl Committee insisted on making sure their game was played on New Year's Day to keep with tradition, it could be worked out. Scheduling could be flexible and while customs such as bowl tie-ins wouldn't be guaranteed, the tournament committee could try their best to accommodate rival conferences.

The current BCS contract is up in 2010 and we're not very far from making something like this a reality. It can happen. We just need people that are dedicated to what's right for college football.

Here We Go Again

Today the Yankees signed pitcher C.C. Sabathia to a contract worth roughly $161 million dollars over seven years. It's the largest contract ever given to a pitcher. In addition to this monumental signing, the new rumor is that the Yanks are trying to work out a deal with another high-profile pitcher, A.J. Burnett. Some things never change, do they? It doesn't come as a surprise to me that the Yanks are throwing around huge money this offseason. I just can't understand why.

It's become an offseason tradition of sorts for the guys in pinstripes. Over the last decade, America's most storied sports franchise has paid less attention to its farm system and more money to big-name free agents. I don't want to tell the Steinbrenners or GM Brian Cashman how to do things. These are successful businessmen who are highly regarded in their field. I'm just some amateur writer, barely old enough to purchase the Amstel I'm sipping on. I can't knock their hustle. This is a franchise that has won 26 World Championships in its history. Hell, I'm a Phils fan. My team has appeared in less World Series in my lifetime than the Yankees have won. But after years of failed free agent acquisitions and wasted money, when will the Yankees learn from their mistakes?

Personally, I'm a saver. Okay, maybe not a saver. But I budget well. If I were a GM, I would never chase after a free agent like Sabathia, Burnett, or Manny Ramirez. There's no denying their talent. I just feel like they're a waste of money. Of course, money is no object for the Yankees. Ol' George and his brash son Hank, the new Yankee frontman, are willing to do whatever it takes to win. That's great. I would love if my team's owners were willing to spend all the money in the world. But maybe "buying" championships isn't the best way to do things.

I'm sorry for using the "b" word. It sounds bad and I apologize. I'm making it sound like the Yankees are cheaters. What they're doing isn't cheating. It's more like slacking, or taking the easy way out. You often hear people in sports talk about "developing talent." The New York Yankees used to do it. Guys like Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter - both future Hall of Famer's - were drafted by New York, came up through their system, and have turned out to be lifers in Yankee Land. I'm not saying that every guy you come across is Rivera or Jeter, but the New York Yankees don't develop great players anymore - they get impatient and trade them for "proven" veterans. Players such as Nick Johnson, Jose Contreras, and Dioner Navarro were once huge prospects within the Yankees farm system. Since then, each of those players has found success elsewhere and the Yankees farm system has weakened.

There is no formula to fielding a championship-caliber baseball team. If there was, someone would have figured it out already. It takes good scouting, good coaching, a little luck, and lots of patience. I think it's hard to point the finger at any one problem, in any situation, and claim that it was the problem. But patience, however, seems to be something that the current Yankees regime is lacking. They say that patience is a virtue. They're right. It's difficult to be patient - especially when the stakes, as well as the expectations, are high. In the Bronx the expectations couldn't be higher. The Yankees are sort of like a gambler with deep pockets. The more the gambler loses on big bets, the more he wants to bet to make up for his losses. It's a vicious cycle.

A successful gambler is one who thinks ahead and remains patient. The Yanks have not done either in recent years. They continue to make moves that satisfy their present desires. They're always looking for a quick fix. The problem is, they aren't finding one. Put yourself in Brian Cashman's shoes. You're farm system isn't producing the way it used to, you continue to trade away the talent you do have for overpayed veterans that are aging, and your "stars" are fading fast. What would you do? If I ran the Yankees I would have taken extensive notes this October. I would have come to realize that the two clubs playing for the World Series are full of young, underpaid talent. I wonder when will the Yanks realize this.

Don't Bet On It

My family turned me on to sports when I was young. Before I turned ten I was watching SportsCenter religiously and getting quizzed by my grandfather on college football nicknames. By the time I was twelve I was fortunate enough to be attending Penn State football games on a pretty regular basis. I used to tell people in the stands, "Pick a number, I'll give you the player's name." Before long I was known as "the statistician" and still hold the title today in section SHU of Beaver Stadium. The amount of useless information I've obtained is immeasurable. Maybe that's why I've always struggled in school. I squarely place the blame on my dad, uncle and grandfather.

My dad played this football pool at his work when I was younger. It was the kind where you pick each game heads-up and give your MNF score as the tiebreaker. Not that he needed my help, but he always asked me what I thought. I'm not sure if he really respected my opinion at such a young age or just wanted to get me involved. Either way, I appreciated it. Dad used to tell me that if I was ever going to bet on football that this was as far as I should go with it. Although he was always good at picking winners, even he was wrong his fair share. He used to tell me how unpredictable pro football is and that it's too dangerous to bet more than the five dollars it cost him to pick winners each weekend.

I've come to learn that he was right and the last couple seasons of pro football have supported that. Following the 2007 regular season, you, me and Papa Rounds all figured the undefeated Patriots were Super Bowl Champs-to-be. We were wrong. The New York Giants proved to be the one team that could stop Tom Brady and the their record-setting offense. I'm no gamblin' man. But if I was, I would have put my money on New England - and lost.

This season of pro football has been just as wild. If I told you in August that the Titans would have the best record in the league or that the Falcons and Dolphins were going to be in the hunt for the playoffs you would have thought I was crazy. Jacksonville and San Diego are a combined 9-17 today. Did you see that coming? I didn't. I figured this was the year that the Jags would take over the AFC South. And I assumed the Chargers would continue to dominate a weak AFC West. I guess that's why I don't work for ESPN yet. Another popular pick in August was the Cowboys as Super Bowl Champs. Count me in on that one, too. Even the Eagles were considered by some the sexy, dark horse pick to win it all. Right now it looks as though their Week 17 showdown will eliminate one of the two and sneak the other through the postseason's back door as the final wild card spot.

When pro football takes unexpected turns, fantasy football does the same. My fantasy league is always competitive and this season was no different. It may have been the most evenly matched season in our five-year history. Each season of the IFFL has produced a different champion - including this year. In fact, not one of our past champions had a winning record this season. For every unexpected NFL team, there was an unexpected fantasy stud that exploded onto the scene. Kurt Warner, who wasn't the starter for Arizona this summer, finished our regular season as the league's No. 2 quarterback. The top three running backs ended up being DeAngelo Williams, Michael Turner and Thomas Jones. In the preseason I had them ranked 24th, 17th and 15th, respectively. And there's why CBS Sportsline doesn't employ me either.

A few years ago I worked at this bar down the road. One of the bartenders there ran a weekly football pool like the one my dad used to play: five bucks, winners only, no points, MNF tiebreaker. In the second week of the season I won and the purse was $150. Like I told you before, I'm no gambler - so I played it smart and went out on top. Inexpensive pools and fantasy football are fun. They're enjoyable, they force you to pay more attention than you normally would and you can win a little cash. Laying big odds, however, can get you in some trouble. And while the NFL's random results may produce some exciting drama, they scare guys like me away.

Today I work at a restaurant in the far northeast of Philly one day a week. While it sucks to wait tables on Sundays, game day, I do get to check on the NFL action here and there. Plus, I like watching the guys that have money on the games bitching and moaning in the bar. They're pretty funny. They'll tell me stories about how much money they have on this game and that game. I'm surprised they haven't had heart attacks yet. I always tell them, "I couldn't imagine having hundreds of dollars riding on a game with such uncertainty." But I guess that's the allure of it. Someday the huge wagers will catch up to one of these characters. The unforeseeable results of the NFL will ruin them and I'll be saying, "Told you so." It's a good thing my dad warned me years ago.

The Greatest Wealth Is Health

Of our four major pro sports, the NBA may be the only one where the acquisition of one player can turn a franchise upside down. The greatest example of this was the Boston-Minnesota trade of July '07. The Celtics 7-for-1 deal to acquire Kevin Garnett was unprecedented. It was clear that Danny Ainge, Boston's President of Basketball Operations, was going to either look like a genius or an idiot.

That caliber of player can, and obviously did, bring the type of swagger that changes culture. And when every team begins to search for their Garnett, their swagger, the culture of the whole league can change. In a few short years, the NBA has gone from a boring league of ego-driven isolation ballplayers to a highly marketable product with a bright future.

The mid-to-late 90's brought about the decline or retirement of many of the league's all-time best. Jordan, Hakeem and Stockton are just a few guys that either hung it up or fought their hardest not to during this time. The fading careers of these players, coupled with the NBA lockout of '98-'99, began to turn basketball fans off.

The television ratings for the 1998 Finals that matched Jordan and Pippen's Bulls versus Stockton and Malone's Jazz may have set all-time records, but things went downhill quickly. The following season was shortened due to the aforementioned lockout, and the 1999 Finals, which showcased the emergence of a young Tim Duncan and the last hurrah for David Robinson, was a failure by television standards. The ratings for that series fell to their lowest point since 1981 and got worse in the years that followed. With an entire generation of great players being replaced by me-first ball hogs like Allen Iverson and Damon Stoudamire, could you blame fans for feeling that something was missing?

When a star fades their presence is felt in more ways than one. The player isn't the only thing that disappears. The great dynasties begin to fall, rivalries that were once heated begin to cool off, and individual matchups that were must-see drama are gone. It's not that there wasn't any quality basketball earlier this decade. It just wasn't what we were accustomed to. Besides the cream of the crop, the talent pool wasn’t very deep during the NBA's lean years and subsequently, viewers became disinterested.

One reason was that Major League Baseball was at its peak in the late 90's and into the new millennium. From the home run chase of '98 to Barry Bonds' chase of Mark McGwire in 2001, baseball was as popular as had been in decades. They surely burst our bubbles in the years that followed with the steroids issue. But for that period of time, baseball was king. Even hockey was huge in America ten years ago. The NHL was very strong in their pre-lockout years. They had the Wings, Avs, and Devils as well as their very own group of future HOF'ers still playing. For a while, pro basketball was the least appealing of the big four.

In the last few years, however, The Association has made a comeback. Guys like LeBron, Chris Paul and Dwight Howard are now the face of the league. And they aren't the only ones. Teams like Portland, Atlanta, Indiana and Philly have loads of talent. Although each may have average records the last couple years, they're only a season or two away from breaking out.

It’s also helped that historically great teams like L.A. and Boston are great again. Last season's Finals brought a generation of viewers back. And it showed my generation what our fathers had been talking about when we were young. I remember the stories my dad used to tell me about all the Hall of Famers from the 80's. I don't mean to compare, but Kobe and Gasol versus KG and Pierce was pretty heavy stuff too. That six game series was great to watch. I hadn't been that excited for an NBA Finals since I was small.

In case you were wondering, I stole my title from Virgil. He said that over two thousand years ago. I'm sure he didn't have the National Basketball Association in mind when he wrote it, but it fits here. The NBA is back. It's as healthy as it's been since Jordan left Chicago. The foundation of young talent is there, the Celtics and Lakers rivalry is strong, and the personal rivalries are making a comeback too.

I'm a Sixers fan. I love the signing of Elton Brand. But they're still a young team. And while I'd love to see Philly challenge Boston or Cleveland in the East this year, it's a win/win situation for me regardless. Worst case scenario is this: I'll have to watch a Lakers-Celtics rematch. What a shame. Or maybe LeBron can lead his team to the Finals and I'll get to see Kobe and LeBron, the league's two best players. In past years, if my team got eliminated, I would stop watching. Now I'm glued. And that proves that health really is wealth.